EDITORIAL: Let Constitution guide drone use

Published: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 04:59 PM.

Lawmakers across the United States will soon be eyeing the use of drones — unmanned aerial devices — for state and local police work. In the enthusiasm to deploy such devices, state lawmakers need to carefully consider the proper uses of drones in police work, firefighting, disaster relief and counter-terrorism.

There are serious concerns about the impact of drones on civil liberties. Drones are easy to use and grow less expensive by the month.

Drones are also growing more compact and sophisticated. Obviously, these small aircraft create a whole new order of possibilities for police surveillance and will give police a powerful new tool that can either be a welcome enhancement to law enforcement or unconstitutionally intrusive.

For example: A drone no bigger than a kite could be positioned over private property looking for marijuana plants and gather digital photographic evidence while doing so.

Of major concern to civil liberties is that drones could gather evidence first with warrants obtained later; and some civic leaders have proposed banning drone activity, no matter how beneficial it might be, in order to stop any potential spying on citizens.

Some states are looking to only authorize drone use for counter-terrorism and ban them from gathering other types of evidence. Such a stringent approach seems to be an overreaction to the potential for abuse.

If warrants have been obtained, why shouldn’t drones be used? Is photographic evidence gathered from the skies somehow more proper if the plane is manned?

Lawmakers across the United States will soon be eyeing the use of drones — unmanned aerial devices — for state and local police work. In the enthusiasm to deploy such devices, state lawmakers need to carefully consider the proper uses of drones in police work, firefighting, disaster relief and counter-terrorism.

There are serious concerns about the impact of drones on civil liberties. Drones are easy to use and grow less expensive by the month.

Drones are also growing more compact and sophisticated. Obviously, these small aircraft create a whole new order of possibilities for police surveillance and will give police a powerful new tool that can either be a welcome enhancement to law enforcement or unconstitutionally intrusive.

For example: A drone no bigger than a kite could be positioned over private property looking for marijuana plants and gather digital photographic evidence while doing so.

Of major concern to civil liberties is that drones could gather evidence first with warrants obtained later; and some civic leaders have proposed banning drone activity, no matter how beneficial it might be, in order to stop any potential spying on citizens.

Some states are looking to only authorize drone use for counter-terrorism and ban them from gathering other types of evidence. Such a stringent approach seems to be an overreaction to the potential for abuse.

If warrants have been obtained, why shouldn’t drones be used? Is photographic evidence gathered from the skies somehow more proper if the plane is manned?

Then there’s the question of traffic observation. Drones offer police an efficient way to look for accidents and clogged traffic patterns.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already addressed the fear about drones, albeit indirectly, in Kyllo v. United States, a key 2001 decision. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that thermal imaging devices could not be used to detect possible criminal activity before a warrant was issued. To search first and gather warrants later was seen as unreasonable by the high court.

Sophisticated technology should only be used when there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. Drones cannot and should not be used to spy on U.S. citizens by flying over houses, snapping pictures or general surveillance without warrants.

The proper guide for drone use can be found in a 200-plus-year-old document: the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Once there is probable cause or warrants have been issued, drones could assist in warranted searches. They could help SWAT teams on dangerous calls. And of course, drones could help fight fires, terrorism, disasters, border infringements and more.

The possibilities are endless, but caution is needed.

States should work with ordinary citizens as well as emergency responders to develop strategies and policies governing the use of drone technology. A ban on drones just isn’t in the cards, but abuses of these devices could quickly render the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment meaningless.